The persecution instituted by the emperor Valerian (AD. 253–260) long has presented modern scholars with several important problems. One of the most pressing questions concerns the reasons behind Valerian's sudden shift in religious policy in 257. Prior to that time the church was largely undisturbed, but the years 257–258 witnessed a series of increasingly severe imperial edicts directed against Christianity. What prompted this sudden reversal of imperial religious policy in 257? Moreover, given the change in the official position, what was the nature of this revised religious policy? The overall picture that emerges out of an attempt to answer these questions indicates that the primary motives behind this persecution were, in fact, religious. Further, the government's religious outlook also encompassed certain related social aims. In order to deal with these issues effectively, however, one first must compare Valerian's religious policy to those of his predecessors from 249 to 253.

In his palace in Prague on 16 December 1585, the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II was plainly annoyed. The Holy League of the powerful French Roman Catholic Guise family and their puppet, King Henry III, were putting pressure on their coreligionist to deal with his vassal, Frederick, count of Montbéliard and Württemberg. In a fine hand with many impressive flourishes, Rudolph's secretary prepared the angry emperor's letter to Frederick, warning him “in a friendly way” to obey at once and to send away the French Protestant exiles seeking refuge in the county of Montbéliard. If Frederick refused, he would fall under Rudolph's displeasure and incur imperial wrath and punishment (Kaiserlichen ungnad und straff).

A striking feature of religious life in the United States has been the strength and vitality of the black churches. How is the distinctive character of these churches, as well as their strength and vitality, to be explained and understood?

In the preface to his first study of American Christianity, The Social Sources of Denominationalism, H. Richard Niebuhr gave his reasons for undertaking the book. A course in “Symbolics” he taught as a seminary professor had convinced him that any attempt to distinguish denominations primarily by references to their doctrines or to approach the problem of Christian unity from a purely theological point of view was “artificial and fruitless.” Real understanding required a shift of orientation from theology to history, sociology, and ethics.

Students of Latin American pentecostalism often have viewed it more as a symptom of emerging mass society than as a vital religious force. Studies based on development theory, especially, assume that popular movements in the Third World, such as Brazilian pentecostalism, Spiritism, and Umbanda, may promote national integration by offering marginal peoples rudimentary preparation for civic roles. Presumably the decision-making and leadership experience gained in religious participation later may be applied to community and political activities.